An airline passenger outfitted with a urine bag for medical reasons had to sit through his flight soaked in urine after a TSA agent dislodged his bag during an aggressive security pat-down. Nearly a month later, he finally received an apology from TSA chief John Pistole.

Tom Sawyer, who wears a urostomy bag as a result of a bout with bladder cancer, explained his medical condition to a TSA agent at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on Nov. 7 after agents noticed something under his shirt during an X-ray scan of his body. When agents told him he’d have to undergo a pat-down, Sawyer asked for it to be conducted in a private room, to which the agent complied.

But Sawyer says the agent showed little sensitivity or patience in conducting the pat-down and, as a result, dislodged the cap on the urostomy bag, releasing urine onto his clothes and body. The agent offered no apology or even acknowledgment of what he’d done, and Sawyer was reduced to tears as he dealt with the humiliation of having to face other passengers in his condition. With no time to change clothes before his flight, Sawyer was forced to endure the journey to Florida in urine-soaked clothes.

“It was extremely upsetting,” he told the Detroit News.

On Monday, after his plight made national headlines, TSA chief John Pistole called Sawyer to apologize. Sawyer told Pistole that agents needed more training to be able to identify medical equipment and know how to handle it properly.

“They need to know what it looks like, how it functions. They obviously do not know,” he told the newspaper, adding that he refused to fly again for the time being.

“No, no, no. Now a thousand times, no,” he said. “Not until I can get my head around all this.”

Pistole vowed to discuss the issue with TSA supervisors to determine what kind of training should be implemented.

Sawyer’s experience highlights a growing antipathy for the TSA’s screening methods, which include an invasive pat-down that involves using open hands to touch a passenger’s chest and groin area as an alternative for passengers who opt out of passing through invasive body scanners. The scanners, currently deployed in about 70 airports across the country, produce an image of a passenger’s body beneath their clothes.

Some passengers and civil liberties groups have criticized the scanners, saying they violate a passenger’s privacy and constitutional right against unreasonable search. The TSA has insisted it has no plans to get rid of the scanners or change the nature of its invasive pat-downs. They also say the machines would be ineffective at spotting explosives hidden in body cavities.

Surveys show that public outcry against the TSA may be growing.

Although a CBS poll last week showed that 80 percent of Americans who responded to the survey supported the use of the full-body scanners, a new survey conducted for ABC News (.pdf) — following increased media attention on the issue — found growing opposition.

Although support for scanners was still 2-1, the poll showed that only 64 percent of respondents supported the use of the scanners, while 32 percent opposed them. With regard to patdowns, 50 percent of respondents indicated the TSA was taking them too far. At least 20 percent of respondents indicated that they were less likely to fly as a result of the new security procedures.

The TSA has said that, despite growing criticism, it has no intention of changing the invasive pat-downs. But statistics guru Nate Silver offers a nice summary of TSA policies in the past that have gone by the wayside after pushback from the public.

For example, in 2007, the TSA began allowing passengers to carry lighters onboard planes, which it had previously banned. In 2002, agents stopped routinely asking passengers who had packed their luggage and if it had been in their possession at all times. Airlines also stopped checking passenger photos at departure gates.

Most recently, this past weekend, the TSA decided that pilots would be exempt from new screening procedures following complaints from pilot associations that the procedures were humiliating to pilots and that a pilot intent on crashing a plane hardly needed explosives to do so.